The Sunday morning news. [volume] (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1886-1891, 1887-01-09
NORRIS & ESSEX ON TOP.
THE COURT OF ERRORS SWEEPING
DECISION IN ITS FAVOR.


The State Declares the ErrepeaIable Com
tract Intact. and Holds that the states
Oaiy Remedy is o Condemn its Prop
cry and Take Possession of the Road.
TRENTON, Jan. 8 Especial. THE Court of
Errors and Appeals sat in full conclave
to-day to pass its Judgment on large num-
Der of ope ais OF more or less Importance I o
the people O. the different localities in the
State, and one in which all the people In
the State are interested in. By eleven
o'clock the enclosure within the railing of
the court room was occupied by large
number of legal lights, including ex-Gov
ernor Bedle, Chancery Clerk M cDermott
ex-Mayor Collins, Washington B. Williams,
Barker Gummere, William S. Gummere,
Courtlandt Parker, Thomas n. McCarter,
and General Haight. They had no doubt
come to hear he hear the reading of the
opinion of the Court in the case of the
State Board of Assessors against the Morris
X Essex Raj road Company. A long list Of
minor opinions were read first, howeve-,
and it began to be whispered about that
the chances of an opinion in the big case
were somewhat slim. This had the effect
of thinning the court room to an al
most alarming extent. At o'clock
the Chancellor announced that the
opinion on the Morris & Essex
cese would be read by Justice Depue. In
moment the room was again filled and BY
the time the reading commenced a pin
could almost be- heard to drop on the pad
ded carpet. The decision was lengthy, but
the substance can be summed up in a few
liner. It affirms the decision of the Su-
preme Court and declares that the property
of the Morris Il Essex Railroad Company is
Subject only to tax of a "a of one per cent.
on its cost as provided for In its charter in
corporated in the act of 1866 It also de-
clares that the lease of the road to the
Delaware, Lackawanna 4 Western carries
with it the irrepealable contract of the for
mer company with the State. The only
property of either company taxable under
the general railroad law or the Act of 1884
is that acquired outside of the Act of 1865
incorporating the Morris & Essex, and the
supplements thereto. In short the decision
exempts the Morris & Essex from taxation
the same as the other railroads IF the State,
and says practically that of the State
wants the taxes the Legislature must pass
an act condemning the property and TAX
ing it OF cost. In his decision Judge De-
pue affirmed the right of the state to take
the road; and, inasmuch as it was unnec-
essary to allude to the fact, it looks as
though he purposely allades to it as sug-
course to pursue.
Justice Dixon, when his name was
reached stated that he concurred in the
general opinion of the court except that in
mis- opinion the exemption should be linn
tied to the act of 1866, and that all prop
erty acquired by the company after the
passaassaf that. act should be taxed under
the general railroad laws.
The vote OF the court stood Z to 3 in
favor of the decision was resd, the dis
senters being Justice Dixon and Judges
Clements and McGregor.
The decision created much exitement
and surprise. The happiest man in the
state to-day, no doubt, is Ex-Governor
Bedle. To the SUNDAY MORNING News
representative, who met the Governor i'm
p sdiately after the decision had been
- 4, he SAID:
9he decision gives us all we ever claimed
asked for 1t is true that it declares
that the State can legislate as to how it
shall ascertain the cost, and we are perfect
ly willing it should do so.''
eyes, but the State can take the property
at it's original cost, can't it ? and what are
you going. to do about it p asked the re-
porter
sab, that's a question that is yet to be
decided. The contract contains no such
provision. On the whole, am perfectly
satisfied with our status, as laid down in
the decision just rendered"
The Court also handed down decisions
in the following cases:
Stanford versus Lyor-lecision reversed
i ,,t,
Hutchinson versus Beakes-decision re-
yersed.
Charles B. Brock and William Penny
packer versus Neal and Hugh O'Donnell--
decision affirmed.
William z. Dodge versus Love, City Col
lecEor-judgmen affirmed.
Hoyt versus Hoyt--demurrer over, ruled
with costs.
Heyder against the Excelsior Building
and Loan Association of Newark-decision
reversed.
Pitney, Trustee, against Mary @. Ever
SON RENTED to the Prerogative Court for
statement of amount due Pitney for his
services as Trustee.
Dodd versus Lyon, on appeal-appeal
dismissed.
Washington B. Williams, as Receiver,
etc. versus 0. T. W. Mcdonald, on appeal
aeeras of lower Court reversed with costs.
Traphagee versus Roger-decree at
firmed
Watson versus Acton decree affirmed.
Childs versus Rhodes-decree affirmed.
Trotter versus Observation-Disclosures af
frmed.
Juason Clarke, Receiver, versus the
Prudential Insurance Company of Newark
Judgment affirmed.
H,-.-Ir fs..sa~s ua.r To~aau GEeu